Type attributes for note

[melanieWacker]

A "type" attribute may be applied to a number of elements in MODS XML. These are handled in different ways in the current LC MODS RDF ontology. For example, it carries over "statement of responsibility" as one particular note type. 1) Are there other note types that are important enough to be expressed as properties following the model for statementOfResponsibility? 2) Should note types be generally ignored? 3) Create a structure that allows for the expression of any note type? See "Development of a MODS RDF Ontology Discussion Points (Ray Denenberg, Nov. 4, 2013) List of MODS note types in XML: http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/mods-notes.html

[melanieWacker]

MODS XML note types: http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/mods-notes.html

[melanieWacker]

From the discussion on 1/14: "Note: The group discussed the usefulness of the note element in a linked data environment. It was agreed that the work of this group should also result in some guidance on how to make data more useful in RDF rather than simply bringing it over. However, for MODS users who are simply interested in converting the data into RDF the property note will need to be retained, but without the type attributes." I looked through some of the Columbia MODS data and in most cases I think we could live without the note type. One possible exception may be ownership. Other use cases for note type?

[melanieWacker]

Rebecca and Melanie will come up with a list of notes types that are important enough to be expressed as properties. This list will be presented to the larger group and to the general MODS list for comments. (Conference call 1/29/14)

[melanieWacker]

Comment from S. Davis (Columbia): citation/reference (per MARC field 510) -- this kind of element can be key to the basic identification of an item (e.g., a papyrus or manuscript) and will sometimes need to be displayed separately or used for sorting / browsing or even access in some applications. The subfield structure of the MARC field, which facilitated some kinds of sorting, has already been lost in MODS, but citations structure as text according, e.g., to the ALA RBMS "Standard Citation Forms for Rare Materials Cataloging" (http://www.rbms.info/committees/bibliographic_standards/conference-docs/SCF_7Jan2013Draft.pdf) can still be processed consistently. When this field was first proposed for MARC, we actually considered putting it into a range other than the 5xx, since it could have the character of a structured access element, but there wasn't another obvious place for it.

[rguenther52]

Actually MARC added something to the Linking entry fields to parse out citations (to some extent): subfield $q in conjunction with $g in 773.

[melanieWacker]

Notes from 1.29.14 call: MW see ownership as only significant note type RD ownership should be a property rather than note type RG We should start with the full list of types and weed them out this should be put to the MODS user group to make sure that all types are considered before eliminating RG and MW will collaborate on this topic.

[melanieWacker]

Based on 3/24 sub-working group call and posting to the MODS/RDF list (4/3/--no opposing responses) the draft proposal has been accepted. https://github.com/blunalucero/MODS-RDF/wiki/Note-Type-Draft-Proposal